CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all edges' but doesn't describe what 'edges' entail (e.g., connections between steps), whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, or how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all edges') and resource ('in a workflow DAG'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context (e.g., read/write nature, permissions), and doesn't leverage the output schema to hint at return values. For a list operation with multiple inputs, this is inadequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters (workflow_id, version, tenant_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what workflow_id refers to, how version affects results, or the role of tenant_id. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('edges (connections) in a workflow DAG'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_workflows' or 'cdp_list_workflow_steps', which would require a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other workflow-related list tools (e.g., cdp_list_workflows, cdp_list_workflow_steps). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for listing edges specifically.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.